Payroll disappoints (again)

Friday, February 06, 2004 | 09:45 AM

payroll_employment.bmp
Source: BLS

The U.S. economy added fewer jobs in January than forecast.

January payroll employment rose by 112k, 36% below the consensus of 175k. Whisper numbers, those now illegal sweet nothings between CFOs and their favorite analysts, were as high 300k. (Note that Reg FD made whisper numbers illegal; there certainly never should ever be whisper numbers with government data releases).

My friend Brian Reynolds is the Chief Market Strategist at MS Howells. Brian observes:

"Of the 112k rise in payroll in January, retail trade accounted for 75k. This segment was weak in December as stores did not hire as aggressively for the holidays, thus the lack of post-holiday layoffs make it appear that January hiring was strong. So, based on that, this number is weaker than on the surface."

Additionally, Brain notes that the BLS does does their annual benchmark revision this month, and the revisions which were widely believed to be a change for the better, instead seem to be getting revised downwards. Eeewecch.

Bloomberg news noted that "Some companies are beginning to add workers after the economy expanded in the second half of 2003 at the fastest pace in two decades. More hiring may be needed to help boost spending and lift the economy by raising incomes. Slack job growth keeps wage increases tame and gives Federal Reserve policy makers room to hold their target interest rate steady."

The good news, at least for the equity markets, is that the Fed is under no pressure to raise rates any time soon with such sub-par job growth.

Our speculative forecast was off by half. Our thesis was that the Fed was looking to prevent one of two types of inflation. One possibility was that they got an early look at the numbers, and that prompted them to change their language.

That was obviously incorrect. The other possibility -- the Fed was trying to let some air out of a growing equity bubble -- is still in play.


UPDATE: 02/06/04 10:42am
Jeff Cooper fell into a similar gambit I did with the Fed. Jeff wrote prior to the Jobs numbers release:

"President Bush appears on "Meet The Press" on Sunday . . . This also may have caused traders to square up positions and cover shorts in front of the employment data even more so. The thinking being that the president would not want to go on such an important venue in an election year unless the administration knew that the jobs data were good. Hmmm, just asking."

Great minds may think alike, but us idiots all make the same mistakes -- together!

Sources:
Employment Situation
January 2004
Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

U.S. January Payrolls Up 112,000; Unemployment Falls
Carlos Torres
Feb. 6 2004 (Bloomberg)
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aFu6UGow4QGI&refer=home

U.S. Payrolls Grow by 112,000, As Unemployment Rate Drops
WSJ, 9:28 a.m. EST Friday, February 6, 2004
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107607405521222963,00.html

Friday, February 06, 2004 | 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)
de.li.cious add to de.li.cious | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post

bn-image

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d83420795f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Payroll disappoints (again):

» BLS Report: Less Than Expected from Industry - The Joe Hill Dispatch - Journal of Business, Finance and Economics
Brad DeLong: Another disappointing payroll employment number: Employment Situation Summary : Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 112,000 in January to 130.2 million, seasonally adjusted.... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 6, 2004 10:42:07 AM

Comments

not letting the air out of a growing speculative bubble in equities perhaps - rather out of one in bonds. Remember, it's the 10th anniversary of the bursting of the 1993 bond bubble - which grew last time he left rates too low for too long. The economy doesn't need 1% rates, nor does the market. In fact the market is better off with rates at neutral. Problem is, how to get there?

Posted by: Mark T | Feb 6, 2004 11:08:13 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.



Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Archives

Complete Archives List

Blogroll

Blogroll

Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:


Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites

FeedBurner


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™

FeedBurner